German
Spanish
French
Italian
Portuguese
Japanese
Korean
Russian
ChineseMetrolink Tries to Push Through Fare Increase on Unwary Passengers
[tags]metrolink, fare increase, los angeles[/tags]
When the last multi-year fare increase was approved in 2004, it was a many month process that included extensive public comment periods and public meetings. At that time, annual increases of approximately 3.5 percent were approved for each year over a 10-year period.
This time around, the proposal is to increase fares an additional 3.5 percent over the next three years. That means that for the next three years the fare increase will be double what was previously approved in 2004.
The only notice that passengers received was a flyer dropped on the seats on some, but not all, morning trains on April 3, 2007. The meeting to approve the fare increase is the next regular board meeting on April 27, 2007. The fare increase was not even mentioned in the monthly Metrolink Matters publication for April.
Many passengers don’t even know the fares are being increased and it’s hard to find the information about the increase on Metrolink’s web site, even if you know about it. See if you can find it.
And beyond that, what’s available on the web site only focuses on one year of the fare increase without showing what the two subsequent years fare increases will look like.
It’s difficult to see the effect of the fare increase, because the calculator provides the fares only for each station pair, one at a time. It would take hundreds of uses of the calculator to determine how the fares would look system-wide.
—
Metrolink’s fares are already high and its farebox recovery ratio is one the highest in the nation.
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrolink_%28Southern_California%29
—
So, with almost no notice to its passengers, and without disclosing the full effect of the proposed increase, Metrolink is trying to push through a multi-year fare increase in less than one board meeting cycle.
Call me suspicious, but it’s hard to believe that Metrolink didn’t plan for this over several months, so the short notice virtually assures that the increase will be approved without significant public opposition.
—
Metrolink Train Riders is providing an on-line petition for passengers to protest the fare increase.
Discussion
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Please keep discussions civil: exercise Troll Controll.
Metrolink’s fares are too high, meanwhile, MTA’s fares are too low. Great. Unfortunately, if the proposed MTA fare hikes go through, then both of them will be too high.
Scott, I have no clue why you think Metrolink fares are too high. I am usually concerned to get a table, so I can work on my laptop going/coming to downtown.
Again, that 52 mile round trip costs me 15 cents/mile plus fuel, oil, tires and downtown parking. So, the $8.50 roundtrip is a bargain and I get work done.
Metrolink has not kept the fare increase secret despite the whining from Richard. It was announced at the Board Committee meetings, with a complete public outreach plan.
The truth is that Metrolink riders get good value for their passes and see no need to comment on the yearly fare increase. In fact, last year, when Metrolink had one of the larger fare increases due to the out of control Diesel fuel costs, maybe 2 people showed up at the public hearing and maybe 10 people showed up at all the outlying areas.
Metrolink could use at least 50 more cars today, but the agency will have to wait until the new order starts arriving in 2009/10.
Complaining about the Metrolink Fare Hike is just dead in the water. No one cares. Just keep the trains above 95% on time performance and provide seats for everyone and Metrolink will continue to grow.
It is appalling how “citizen journalism” can so rapidly spread misinformation without any accountability. The original poster is completely incorrect in his assertion that Metrolink is piling on two 3.5% fare increases at one time. He is correct that the 10-year fare restructuring did assume an annual average system wide fare increase of 3.5% would occur concurrently but that was only to set a baseline to make sure that the period of time over which fare restructuring was to take place would be long enough to avoid exposing passengers to outsize increases in any future year. The Metrolink board did not actually approve 10 years worth of 3.5% fare increases and in fact, asked to have subsequent fare increases brought back to them for discussion and approval as was done in 2004, 2005 and 2006 and is being for the proposed 2007, 2008 and 2009 increases.
The link to the fare increase information is clearly available on the Metrolink website on the home page in the bottom half of the page with other information of interest. The information has its own dedicated page (Click here) that includes tables with fares for all three years.
In addition, farebox recovery is a standard measure of success in the public transit industry and reflects the transit agency’s success in relieving as much of the burden on public funding sources as possible and operating a service as much like a private sector enterprise as possible. One would think it would be a noble goal to actually have a public agency operate at break even or, heaven forbid, actually turn a profit and generate revenue for other uses. Apparently, the original poster has a well-developed sense of entitlement to heavily subsidized or even free public transit.
It is appalling how a high level Metrolink employee (Francisco Oaxaca, director of Communications) can attack its own riders on a public blog. What happened to listening to the customer? It is appalling that Metrolink can be so negative and thus turn away customers. Better watch what you say under your own name, Mr. Oaxaca.
The fare tables were recently added and were NOT on the web site prior to today, so I give Richard credit for getting those on the Internet. (One of my public comments made was for Metrolink to post this information.) While I think the fare increases are reasonable, I never liked the “travel distance” calculation and preferred the old zone system, but I can understand why the change was made to make pricing less transparent. Prior to 2004, Board members were trying to get their stations placed as close to Downtown as possible, which led to inherent conflicts.
Richard is incorrect in noting that the fare increase was cumulative. Originally, in 2004, the Metrolink board projected a 3.5% average fare increase. However, the increase was actually 4.5% in 2005 and 5.5% in 2006, due to diesel price increases. However, the maximum fare increase for station pairs goes up to 10% again, instead of the 8% originally approved in 2004.
[i]In addition, farebox recovery is a standard measure of success in the public transit industry and reflects the transit agency’s success in relieving as much of the burden on public funding sources as possible and operating a service as much like a private sector enterprise as possible. One would think it would be a noble goal to actually have a public agency operate at break even or, heaven forbid, actually turn a profit and generate revenue for other uses. Apparently, the original poster has a well-developed sense of entitlement to heavily subsidized or even free public transit.[/i]
It depends on what Metrolink is for. Metrolink prices their service at a level where they maximize revenue. Obviously their prices could go up even further as their trains are still packed during the peak hour. However, if Metrolink were to price themselves based on increasing ridership within the level of seating capacity, then their prices could be lower. According to the National Transit Database, Metrolink fares collected per passengers are above the average for commuter rail west of the Mississippi, although they are still cheaper than New York commuter rail fares collected. I had this go around with an editor on wikipedia with the user name “Scrra” here where I cite all of my facts for the statement I wrote in the article. Metrolink fares are too high, but this is primarily due to local governments being unwilling to subsidize the service further. Look at all the teeth pulling it took to get the Holiday Train out every year. With the exception of OCTA (which has promised an aggressive expansion of service I call “Metrolink to midnight”, although I find the social benefit of that dubious), most counties don’t want to spend money on adding train cars to relieve peak congestion (the only reason that Metrolink should exist).
I don’t think it is an “entitlement” for heavily subsidized public transit, although let’s also be aware of a few facts. Metrolink was partially created as a response to Regulation XV requirements for employers who needed to lure more people into ridesharing. Buses have that negative stigma and only serve Downtown and a few other major destinations, and a lot of folks don’t want strangers in their cars. Fair enough, so employers pressure their political representatives to create Metrolink to help meet air quality regs. The consequence of this is that, as of 2004 (the latest data publicly available), employers subsidize about half of all Metrolink trips, so any fare increase is less painful to riders who don’t pay the full (or in some cases ANY) freight. Instead of Mr. Oaxaca’s negative spin, they could note that Metrolink offers free EZ Pass to all its customers, and some of the fare goes to support connecting bus transit. It also does take cars off the roadway. IF there is only a certain amount of capacity in train cars, and that capacity would be exceeded once fares were lowered, I have no problem pricing at a level to maximize revenue while ensuring enough capacity. However, I cannot support Bart Reed’s quixotic attempts at running more weekend service on the Antelope Valley Line when bus service is being cut. The average ridership is abysmal and the subsidy is too high compared to bus service. (While Metrolink is funded out of a different pot from the MTA, MTA does contribute to Metrolink’s budget and the MTA Board must approve the amount spent on Metrolink.)
Calwatch: One thing we believe in at Metrolink is honesty and openness. We are always willing to have a discussion about issues regarding our service. We are very aware of the varying effects a fare increase has on passengers who may or may not receive an employer subsidy. It’s just something we cannot control. We do not and never have offered our tickets at a discount to any employers who participate in our Corporate Pass Program. We feel our fares compare favorably with those of other commuter rail operators on the country. Of the 15 other commuter rail agencies nationwide, Metrolink has the 5th highest fare per passenger but only the 9th highest fare per passenger mile. Based on data from the 2005 National Transit Database, Metrolink’s fare of 13 cents per passenger mile and the average bus fare in the SCAG region is the same - 13 cents per passenger mile.
As far as our proposed fare increase, we have taken extra steps in response to comments to provide more information on our website as well as in our onboard newsletter. Our board will be meeting on April 27 to hear public comment and has the option to extend the public comment period or even defer the proposed increase in fares at that time.
By the way, blog postings go both ways. I in no way construed my posting as an “attack” but rather an attempt to correct what we feel were some inaccuracies. Case in point, the cap on the overall fare increase does not go “…up to 10% again”, it stays at 10% but no fare actually increases more then the original cap of 8%. Other points made by the original poster were right on and we are taking and have taken action to respond in a positive way. We do appreciate hearing when we have come up short and will do what it takes to make sure riders are comfortable with our process. I invite all to our website at metrolinktrains.com to see what we have added. Let us know if we have done enough.
Actually, I have to correct you on this point on the 10% cap. In the March Metrolink board agenda, you write “Staff recommends approval of the public communications plan described below to solicit comment on a three-year program that would annually increase the average fares by 3.5% in FY2007-08 FY -2008-09 and FY 2009-10. Increases in any individual station pairs would be limited to a maximum of 10% each year of the three-year program.” In the previous sentence, it turns out the fare cap was originally approved at 8% in 2004, but was increased to 9% in 2005 and 10% in 2006. It now appears that staff has been able to control the increase down to a 8% level, what is commendable.
One thing that should be noted is that it is disingenuous to suggest that public comments are meaningful, when the preliminary budget is presented for adoption at the same meeting. (This is going to be the same problem I have with the MTA fare increase.) It is a problem with all levels of government, unfortunately, to cry poor right as the budget goes out. If a fare increase was known to be needed in the budget, staff at all agencies should have taken comments and planned for it at least two months before the budget goes out to provide for a contingency in case the increase is not approved. Santa Monica Big Blue Bus deserves credit in this regard for taking comment about a fare increase five months before they actually implemented it. MTA, on the other hand, gets demerits for waiting until the last minute to spring a fare increase on its riders, and trying to balance a budget on that fare increase. (Metrolink is somewhere in the middle in that a 3-5% increase has been the standard practice at that agency for some time, but they waited too late to receive public comment.) I think that Metrolink has a niche as a premium commuter rail system, and if they want to charge fares to reflect that, then that is their right, but based on the public comments given, Metrolink is not being a premiere service with overcrowded trains and such.
I’d like to ask readers to remember a few things.
1) This is an open blog, virtually anyone can write an article. Richard (a first time writer) wrote an article, I read it and didn’t find anything particularly offensive about it other than him expressing his opinion (and reasonably enough too, after all, this is the internet, opinions are often voiced with as little tact as possible), and so I approved it.
2) This a blog. It should not be taken as hard news. Even calling it “citizen journalism” is a stretch. Anyone who takes the writings on MetroRiderLA (or the writings of any blog for that matter) as gospel needs to reassess their media literacy. Sure, the advent of the internet and the fact that anyone can publish anything certainly has made “accountability” of what is said a thing of the past, but welcome to the 90’s people… if something doesn’t sit right with you, research it for yourself. In this case, don’t sign Richard’s online petition.
3) This is also why MetroRiderLA has a liberal and open comment system. If something doesn’t sound right, go ahead and say it (as has happened in this post). A discussion erupts and the original story gets a little bit more interesting. This is the true power of the internet, blogs, and “citizen journalism”, over more traditional journalism with implied “accountability”. Instant letters to the editor are possible!
Just try to keep it civil.
Fred:
I think my use of the term “citizen journalism” is a reflection of the openness of yours and other blogs that in reality do call those of us in the public sector to be accountable at all levels. I appreciate these forums much more than the more formal and structured channels of board meetings, printed newsletters, etc. I also appreciate the opportunity to discuss issues one on one in a positive way. Richard brought up some very valid issues about how our outreach process was being conducted and we felt he was on point.
As far as the comment above on the “cap”, it is a bit confusing. The cap was set at 10% and remains. We are just not going above 8% this time around.
Anyways, keep up the good work! This is much more satisfying (and effective) in my opinion than many letters to a newspaper editor have been.
Thanks for visiting, Francisco.
It helps when a person within the business lends his or her insight into how things run, and especially when they can communicate directly with riders. Plus, it doesn’t hurt to be recognized by the pros.